I know people who aren't paying for cable want to believe this, but it's simply not true. HBO would be incredibly stupid right now to jeopardize the contracts they have now to try and chase down individual subscribers. It's really simple economics, and until the landscape sees a massive shift there's simply too many disincentives to that kind of model, even if on the face of things it sounds that simple and desirable.

That's good news about WatchESPN. I currently subscribe to Comcast for internet only, no phone or cable TV, but if I use the WatchESPN app on my iPhone, I can sign in with my Comcast credentials and start watching immediately. Hoping it works the same way with Apple TV!

While I'm not one for stealing content, I am one for using content to the full extent within the legal contract put forth.

Did you know every Comcast subscription to internet comes with a maximum of five accounts? Each account has access to all the cable content available on that subscription. What does that mean? Give your kid/relative/friend an account on your subscription, give them an Apple TV, iPad, or iPhone, the appropriate apps, and have them log in. Instant internet content.

You could also make a deal with that person to pay for part of your bill, thus reducing your cable bill for both of you. It's a bit of a lifehack and not as clean as just everyone getting a netflix subscription, but it works and is relatively simple.

Is something similar available for Time Warner or Cox or other cable providers?

Same with ESPN. If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month. Granted the numbers in the article are rough estimates, but they still have to be in the ballpark.

Cable and bundled channels are here to stay, because it's the only way the economics works. If you're eagerly anticipating the time when you'll be able to "cut the cord" and only buy HBO Go through Apple for $10/month you're going to be disappointed.

So with the aTV outputting over HDMI how does it handle HBO Go content if you convert that signal to say DVI? I know that for many iTunes purchased DRM burdened shows it won't display the video because HDCPI or whatever the TLA is is missing when HDMI is converted.

This appeals to me but in order to potentially use it I either have to convert the signal or upgrade my receiver / TV.

Anyone know for sure, I assume that this needs a full encrypted digital signal path.

Same with ESPN. If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month. Granted the numbers in the article are rough estimates, but they still have to be in the ballpark.

Yes, exactly. It's not that I don't sympathize with cord cutters, the idea sounds great, but the model just isn't there. A cord-cut HBO Go would suddenly feel much less appealing because they couldn't even afford to make a show like Game of Thrones for you to stream.

Same with ESPN. If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month. Granted the numbers in the article are rough estimates, but they still have to be in the ballpark.

Cable and bundled channels are here to stay, because it's the only way the economics works. If you're eagerly anticipating the time when you'll be able to "cut the cord" and only buy HBO Go through Apple for $10/month you're going to be disappointed.

But this is exactly the point... even sports lovers wouldn't pay $100 a month for ESPN, so if we went a-la-carte, in the long run the networks would have to lower their prices, meaning they pay less for the rights to sports in the first place. The subsidization of sports via "mandatory" subscriptions to ESPN via cable networks is leading to bloated salaries for sports players, billion dollar stadiums, etc.... There would finally be some logic behind the prices for sports if only people who cared had to pay.

So with the aTV outputting over HDMI how does it handle HBO Go content if you convert that signal to say DVI? I know that for many iTunes purchased DRM burdened shows it won't display the video because HDCPI or whatever the TLA is is missing when HDMI is converted.

This appeals to me but in order to potentially use it I either have to convert the signal or upgrade my receiver / TV.

Anyone know for sure, I assume that this needs a full encrypted digital signal path.

Good, simple explanation. But I still want some content companies out there to start playing with options. It's time.

Meanwhile, I don't have cable but I use a family member's login info to watch HBO Go on my Xbox 360. It's glorious. I just finished a run of all three seasons of GoT Monday night.

These thing progress slowly. HBO has contracts with the cable companies, and so we get what we can. The advantage here is that we can watch any show when we want to rather than recording it to the DVR, which is often a pain for several reasons.

I look at anything that increases my options as a win, especially as it costs nothing extra. Hopefully, we will be able to get more in the furure, but it's a good start.

> If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month.

So what you're trying to say is that people who pay for cable but don't want to watch ESPN are being absolutely fleeced, to support massive payments to ESPN?

The same is true for every channel. Like the Walking Dead? According to the article's numbers (which you clearly didn't read) everyone that pays for cable pays $0.65/month for that channel. If it was a-la-carte, it would cost $38/month when only the people that watched paid.

This isn't people getting "fleeced", this is how much things cost. Producing ESPN isn't cheap. Producing Game of Thrones isn't cheap. One season is $60 million. That just isn't going to happen if they don't have the steady revenue from cable subscribers and pay-per-view fighting.

Apple has enough cash to bust through this cable log-jam and create an unsurmountable competitive advantage with television. Get the lead out already!

I see lots of naive assumptions about these things. Both cable companies and production companies are wary of these changes, and it won't come easy. With all of Apple's money, they can't break long term business relationships that are based upon a fear of losing money and control.

And Apple can't just throw billions of dollars at this either, because they have to make money, not lose it.

But this is exactly the point... even sports lovers wouldn't pay $100 a month for ESPN, so if we went a-la-carte, in the long run the networks would have to lower their prices, meaning they pay less for the rights to sports in the first place. The subsidization of sports via "mandatory" subscriptions to ESPN via cable networks is leading to bloated salaries for sports players, billion dollar stadiums, etc.... There would finally be some logic behind the prices for sports if only people who cared had to pay.

Again, this isn't just a problem for "people who care about sports". I don't give two shits about sports. But I do like Breaking Bad. And without bundling, steady subscription fees, and a socialized payment structure for these channels, that show wouldn't be able to exist.

Same with ESPN. If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month. Granted the numbers in the article are rough estimates, but they still have to be in the ballpark.

Yes, exactly. It's not that I don't sympathize with cord cutters, the idea sounds great, but the model just isn't there. A cord-cut HBO Go would suddenly feel much less appealing because they couldn't even afford to make a show like Game of Thrones for you to stream.

Sorry, not buying these arguments. HBO doesn't have to give up its current model. It only has to add "external" subscriptions for HBO Go and similar apps. There is a segment of the population that will never pay the extra fees to add Comcast's and other providers premium packages, but would pay for cord-cutter style usage. The two markets are not mutually exclusive.

Same with ESPN. If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month. Granted the numbers in the article are rough estimates, but they still have to be in the ballpark.

Yes, exactly. It's not that I don't sympathize with cord cutters, the idea sounds great, but the model just isn't there. A cord-cut HBO Go would suddenly feel much less appealing because they couldn't even afford to make a show like Game of Thrones for you to stream.

Sorry, not buying these arguments. HBO doesn't have to give up its current model. It only has to add "external" subscriptions for HBO Go and similar apps. There is a segment of the population that will never pay the extra fees to add Comcast's and other providers premium packages, but would pay for cord-cutter style usage. The two markets are not mutually exclusive.

Need more proof? Netflix and the House of Cards series.

HBO does not have the costs for customer service because they farm that out to the cable companies. For them, apparently it is cheaper to not deal with customers directly even when some people would subscribe if the option were available.

Sorry, not buying these arguments. HBO doesn't have to give up its current model. It only has to add "external" subscriptions for HBO Go and similar apps. There is a segment of the population that will never pay the extra fees to add Comcast's and other providers premium packages, but would pay for cord-cutter style usage. The two markets are not mutually exclusive.

Need more proof? Netflix and the House of Cards series.

I think you should read the article I posted the link to. I would love to not be paying tons of money for satellite every month, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. Netflix's investments in some shows is definitely interesting, but it's more of an experiment that happens to be working for them and less a model that could be followed for everyone else producing content.

Same with ESPN. If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month. Granted the numbers in the article are rough estimates, but they still have to be in the ballpark.

Yes, exactly. It's not that I don't sympathize with cord cutters, the idea sounds great, but the model just isn't there. A cord-cut HBO Go would suddenly feel much less appealing because they couldn't even afford to make a show like Game of Thrones for you to stream.

HBO and ESPN are different -- there's no ad revenue going to HBO. If I paid $15/mo for HBO Go without a cable subscription how would that be bad for HBO? Or does HBO get affiliate revenue as well as their fee they charge for access to their channels?

Hopefully AppleTV somehow manages to figure out how to make HBO Go on a device not suck nearly as bad as it does on my Xbox... I cannot tell you how many times during a 30 minutes show, it pauses, spins its little wheel, switches from HD to SD, and back... all while somehow keeping 5.1 sound... I have 50mb internet, so that is not the problem.

HBO Go is great, but they need to step it up...They need to release it on PS3, and Hell, simply tell Comcast and other providers to gfy... and just allow it on any device, on any provider, so long as you subscribe to HBO...Then they need to fix their crappy streaming algorithms or whatever it is that makes them think that I would prefer 5.1 over HD when it comes to streaming priority (note, I want a nice picture first... then worry about the sound)Then, they need to get with the program and simply just say "HBO cable and HBO Go is $10 a month through cable... HBO Go is $15 without cable... the end... They will get a bajillion subscribers at that point.

Sorry, not buying these arguments. HBO doesn't have to give up its current model. It only has to add "external" subscriptions for HBO Go and similar apps. There is a segment of the population that will never pay the extra fees to add Comcast's and other providers premium packages, but would pay for cord-cutter style usage. The two markets are not mutually exclusive.

Need more proof? Netflix and the House of Cards series.

I think you should read the article I posted the link to. I would love to not be paying tons of money for satellite every month, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. Netflix's investments in some shows is definitely interesting, but it's more of an experiment that happens to be working for them and less a model that could be followed for everyone else producing content.

I did read it; to be clear, I'm not suggesting a-la carte cable access as a solution. I'm saying leave the current cable packaging and funding model untouched and add true "cord-cutter access" or Netflix-style access. It's an untapped market. There are a lot a bittorrent-ed copies of Game of Thrones that represent a missed revenue stream.

It makes perfect sense to me, and I'm looking forward to using it tonight. HBO Go includes practically everything that HBO has produced in the last 15 years, as well as almost everything currently playing on their channels. It's on demand. But for me to get on demand stuff through my provider, I'd have to get a different box and IIRC, pay an extra fee. I already have an AppleTV. I've been able to stream my HBO Go app from my iPad to my AppleTV for a little while now, but it's nice to be able to remove a step from the process.

HBO and ESPN are different -- there's no ad revenue going to HBO. If I paid $15/mo for HBO Go without a cable subscription how would that be bad for HBO? Or does HBO get affiliate revenue as well as their fee they charge for access to their channels?

HBO also gets a lot from pay-per-view fights. According to Wikipedia, in 2007 they made $255,000,000 from PPV. That's what's really funding Game of Thrones.

Same with ESPN. If only the people that watched it paid for it, ESPN would cost over $100/month. Granted the numbers in the article are rough estimates, but they still have to be in the ballpark.

Cable and bundled channels are here to stay, because it's the only way the economics works. If you're eagerly anticipating the time when you'll be able to "cut the cord" and only buy HBO Go through Apple for $10/month you're going to be disappointed.

Actually, that's not relevant to HBO at all. Every subscriber to HBO is a single subscriber (well, single home subscriber). Only those people who want HBO pay for it. Every cable subscriber pays for ESPN.

The only reason that HBO's not expanding beyond the cable companies is their existing contracts and they don't want the overhead of managing subscribers themselves. When their cable contracts start to expire in the next couple of years expect Netflix, Amazon, etc. to make a play for an HBO "tier" in their offerings. To HBO that would be no different than their current cable set up.

I know people who aren't paying for cable want to believe this, but it's simply not true. HBO would be incredibly stupid right now to jeopardize the contracts they have now to try and chase down individual subscribers. It's really simple economics, and until the landscape sees a massive shift there's simply too many disincentives to that kind of model, even if on the face of things it sounds that simple and desirable.

And this is the reason why HBO's Game of Thrones continues to be the number one torrent and will keep on this way until HBO makes it easier for people to watch legitimately.

I did read it; to be clear, I'm not suggesting a-la carte cable access as a solution. I'm saying leave the current cable packaging and funding model untouched and add true "cord-cutter access" or Netflix-style access. It's an untapped market. There are a lot a bittorrent-ed copies of Game of Thrones that represent a missed revenue stream.

The reason that's not happening yet is probably due to existing contracts with the providers. HBO could probably make a decent amount of money on that.

The problem with that model though is that Game of Thrones is only shown for three months of the year. If I have HBO on my cable package just to watch that one show, I have it all of the time, so they are getting a whole year's worth of revenue. If it's a subscription-only model with HBO Go, people would get it and then cancel it after the season is over and they would be losing out on that subscription money.

Trust me, I want the economics for this to work as much as anyone else.

HBO and ESPN are different -- there's no ad revenue going to HBO. If I paid $15/mo for HBO Go without a cable subscription how would that be bad for HBO? Or does HBO get affiliate revenue as well as their fee they charge for access to their channels?

HBO also gets a lot from pay-per-view fights. According to Wikipedia, in 2007 they made $255,000,000 from PPV. That's what's really funding Game of Thrones.

OK, lets do some math:

It costs $60 million for a season of Game Of Thrones. There are 10 episodes per year of GoT so that's $6 million per episode. The lowest viewership of a episode of GoT was 2.2 million people, the highest is 5.5 million (ref) -- if we take the halfway point of 3.85 million viewers that's $1.56 per episode that each viewer would have to pay if they sold GoT on a per episode basis (almost like the music industry does now). Or how about $15 for a full year of episodes? Hell, charge $3 per/episode and make a shit tonne of revenue.

Wonder if the app will be possible to use here in Sweden if you have an HBO digital subscription; we can subscribe to HBO for $12/month for watching on our devices without any cable subscription. I hope this means this AppleTV HBO Go app will work for us so I don't need to use AirPlay to get HBO on the big screen :-)

Actually, that's not relevant to HBO at all. Every subscriber to HBO is a single subscriber (well, single home subscriber). Only those people who want HBO pay for it. Every cable subscriber pays for ESPN.

The only reason that HBO's not expanding beyond the cable companies is their existing contracts and they don't want the overhead of managing subscribers themselves. When their cable contracts start to expire in the next couple of years expect Netflix, Amazon, etc. to make a play for an HBO "tier" in their offerings. To HBO that would be no different than their current cable set up.

That's true, HBO is a special case compared to all of the other channels, and like I said in my previous comment the existing contracts is probably the reason other subscription methods aren't happening.

I know people who aren't paying for cable want to believe this, but it's simply not true. HBO would be incredibly stupid right now to jeopardize the contracts they have now to try and chase down individual subscribers. It's really simple economics, and until the landscape sees a massive shift there's simply too many disincentives to that kind of model, even if on the face of things it sounds that simple and desirable.

And this is the reason why HBO's Game of Thrones continues to be the number one torrent and will keep on this way until HBO makes it easier for people to watch legitimately.

FYI most Game of Thrones torrenters are not in the US. They are in countries where the series is licensed to other broadcasters and don't want to have to wait six months to watch the latest season which has already had it's run on HBO in the US. And HBO is unlikely to jeopardize lucrative licensing contracts to those broadcasters by allowing ala carte HBO Go access in those countries. Hence the torrents of popular HBO shows like Game of Thrones would continue regardless.

It costs $60 million for a season of Game Of Thrones. There are 10 episodes per year of GoT so that's $6 million per episode. The lowest viewership of a episode of GoT was 2.2 million people, the highest is 5.5 million (ref) -- if we take the halfway point of 3.85 million viewers that's $1.56 per episode that each viewer would have to pay if they sold GoT on a per episode basis (almost like the music industry does now). Or how about $15 for a full year of episodes?

edit: me do math well.

But, it's $15 for a year of GoT, and $10 a year for Breaking Bad, and $8 a year for Real Time with Bill Maher, and $10 a year for the Walking Dead, and $9 a year for Weeds, etc. At a certain point you'll end up paying just as much as you were for cable.

The other problem with those payments per show is that they aren't able to do budget forecasting for whole multi-season shows, or invest in shows with smaller numbers of people watching (remember Carnivale?) so the quality of the shows may go down.

I'm just pointing out that this is a complicated issue, and I don't think people subscribing to things over an Apple TV is really the answer of how this stuff will work in the future. (Even though that's ideally how I would like it to work as well)

FYI most Game of Thrones torrenters are not in the US. They are in countries where the series is licensed to other broadcasters and don't want to have to wait six months to watch the latest season which has already had it's run on HBO in the US. And HBO is unlikely to jeopardize lucrative licensing contracts to those broadcasters by allowing ala carte HBO Go access in those countries. Hence the torrents of popular HBO shows like Game of Thrones would continue regardless.

Not to mention that some people just won't pay for stuff no matter what. I do think the amount of torrenting would drop, but it's nowhere near 100%. I'd say, at most, 60%.

The reason that's not happening yet is probably due to existing contracts with the providers. HBO could probably make a decent amount of money on that.

The problem with that model though is that Game of Thrones is only shown for three months of the year. If I have HBO on my cable package just to watch that one show, I have it all of the time, so they are getting a whole year's worth of revenue. If it's a subscription-only model with HBO Go, people would get it and then cancel it after the season is over and they would be losing out on that subscription money.

Trust me, I want the economics for this to work as much as anyone else.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner. The reason why they don't offer it via a subscription-only model is they want more money (not that I'm blaming them), not that it's financially impossible to do it that way.